Steve Long's Blog

Main menu

Tag Archives: politics

Post navigation

There is absolutely nothing extraordinary about Richard Mourdock’s view regarding pregnancy as a result of rape1. What is extraordinary is that in a country where 70+% identify themselves as Christians2, the view that only God can create life is thought to be extreme.

The use of a pronoun allowed some to accuse Mourdock of saying that God intended the rape to happen, but he was clearly referring to the life that is created in all pregnancies, regardless of how that pregnancy came about. Human beings cannot create life. A human can fertilize an egg, which is the means that God uses to create new life, but it is God who brings the new life into existence.

Unfortunately for our country, orthodox Christian views are becoming increasingly marginalized. Despite the overwhelming majority who claim to be Christians, espousing actual Christian views in public is now seen as a negative. Although I voted for Rick Santorum in the 2012 Republican Primary, I perceived that he was unlikely to win a national race for President because too many people were turned off by his strong commitment to his faith. His religious affiliation wasn’t the problem, it was his religious fervor. I fear that the same will be true of Mike Pence if he runs for President. Mike Pence will be our next Governor, because he is a superb candidate, Indiana is a conservative state, and he has a weak opponent. John Gregg has tried to paint Pence as an extremist, which is ridiculous, but I fear that in a nationwide general election, enough people may buy into such accusations to keep him from winning the Presidency. I hope I’m wrong, and I hope Hoosiers have enough sense to ignore the media’s attempt to stir up controversy around Mourdock.

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God, and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” cbsnews.com↩

Some people have no desire to be king, but they desperately want to be a king-maker. King-making often involves king-breaking, in order to create a vacancy. This desire can cause conservatives, moderates, and liberals alike to engage in stupid, petty behavior.

Both socialists1 and libertarians2 believe that citizens should care about the welfare of their neighbors and help the down-trodden. However, they both underestimate the extent of mankind’s sinfulness.

The socialist prescribes methods for caring for each other, and assumes that people will comply with these methods. They assume the productive will contribute just as much as before. They assume the needy will become productive once their needs have been met.

The libertarian believes that people will generally do the right thing on their own, and that the few “bad apples” will be held in check by market forces. They believe that self-interest is ultimately good, because each individual’s self-interest is best served by working in harmony with their fellow men. They assume that the majority are forward-thinking enough to see the benefit in helping their neighbors so that society in general, themselves included, can be more prosperous.

Unfortunately for both socialism and libertarianism, there is no limit to the laziness, selfishness, and greed that lives in the heart of man (Jer 17:9, Eccl 9:3).

Under socialism, the producers will scale back, seeing no personal benefit to increased productivity. The needy will not seek to be more productive, because someone else will provide for them. Poverty will increase, and the powers that be will attempt to exert more and more control.

Under libertarianism, individuals will seek their own profit with minimal personal effort, and as each person’s goals conflict with others, society will decay into anarchy. After a period of anarchy, someone will rise to power, seize control and crack down on the anarchy.

So socialists and libertarians desire the same thing, make the same mistake in estimating man’s goodness, and both lead to totalitarian control.

Socialist may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far left of the political spectrum. ↩

Libertarian may not be the best label, but I am using it as a description of those on the very far right of the political spectrum. ↩

Yesterday it was revealed that Representative Mark Souder has been committing adultery and is resigning his congressional seat.

Some of his detractors are practically giddy. (The only thing they would like better is if it had been a homosexual affair.) Here is a conservative, evangelical Christian; a staunch proponent of family values; if anyone should take the high road, it should be him. Yet here he is, caught in the worst kind of hypocrisy.

I’d like to examine that hypocrisy.

Here are a couple definitions of hypocrisy:

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. (dictionary.com)

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially: the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion. (merriam-webster.com)

In a sense, there are two ways in which one can be a hypocrite:
1) Saying something that you don’t really believe.
2) Doing something that is contrary to what you believe.

In a strict sense, hypocrisy mainly belongs in the first category. As someone has written on Wikipedia, hypocrisy “is not simply an inconsistency between what is praised or admired and what is done.” The line between the first and second category is sometimes blurry, as our actions typically reveal our true convictions. However, there is a difference between pretense and inconsistency.

I think Souder’s hypocrisy falls into the second category, of failing to live up to his beliefs. I do not think that his stated convictions have been a “put on” to appeal to conservative voters. I suspect that he truly believes in biblically-based morality. If his affair had gone undetected, and if he continued to serve in Congress, I think he would have consistently voted for laws that affirm Judeo-Christian ethics and strong families.

The reason I’m glad Souder is resigning, is not primarily because I see him as having a hypocrisy problem. It’s because I see him as having an integrity problem. Many of the things Souder supported are things that I support too, and I think that his convictions were honest. The problem is that he failed to live according to his convictions.

Somewhere along the line, Souder allowed himself to believe a lie.

Maybe he believed the lie that his situation was special, and his actions were justified. This is possible, but I suspect he fully understood that his actions were wrong.

Maybe he believed the lie that the benefit outweighed the consequences. I’m speculating that he thought they could keep it under wraps, and that this “one little indiscretion” would not impact his work.

This is the type of lie that I’m prone to succumb to. I know something is wrong, but I think it’s not really THAT destructive, and the payoff is worth it.